流行的离职后育儿智能手机应用程序:评估

IF 0.6 Q4 FAMILY STUDIES
Bruce M. Smyth, Jason L. Payne, Michelle Irving, Genevieve Heard
{"title":"流行的离职后育儿智能手机应用程序:评估","authors":"Bruce M. Smyth,&nbsp;Jason L. Payne,&nbsp;Michelle Irving,&nbsp;Genevieve Heard","doi":"10.1111/fcre.12738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In recent years a bewildering array of smartphone applications (“apps”) has emerged to support separated parents' communication. Post-separation parenting apps vary in cost and features; they typically comprise a messaging tool, shared calendar, expense tracker and a means to export records for legal purposes. A key challenge for separated parents and family law practitioners alike is knowing which apps or app feature(s) can work well for different family contexts, needs and budgets. The present study sought to evaluate nine popular post-separation parenting apps and their features using small-<i>n</i> Human–Computer Interaction methods. Mediators role-played high conflict ex-couples while completing a set of five common post-separation communication or organizational tasks. A cross-case analysis of ratings was conducted. We found that (a) many of the mediators changed their apparent enthusiasm for co-parenting apps once they had used the apps themselves; (b) all nine apps were rated somewhere between “Poor” to Fair’; and (c) features of some of the best-known apps were not rated as highly as some of the features of more recent, lesser-known apps.</p>","PeriodicalId":51627,"journal":{"name":"Family Court Review","volume":"61 3","pages":"563-585"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fcre.12738","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Popular post-separation parenting smartphone apps: An evaluation\",\"authors\":\"Bruce M. Smyth,&nbsp;Jason L. Payne,&nbsp;Michelle Irving,&nbsp;Genevieve Heard\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/fcre.12738\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In recent years a bewildering array of smartphone applications (“apps”) has emerged to support separated parents' communication. Post-separation parenting apps vary in cost and features; they typically comprise a messaging tool, shared calendar, expense tracker and a means to export records for legal purposes. A key challenge for separated parents and family law practitioners alike is knowing which apps or app feature(s) can work well for different family contexts, needs and budgets. The present study sought to evaluate nine popular post-separation parenting apps and their features using small-<i>n</i> Human–Computer Interaction methods. Mediators role-played high conflict ex-couples while completing a set of five common post-separation communication or organizational tasks. A cross-case analysis of ratings was conducted. We found that (a) many of the mediators changed their apparent enthusiasm for co-parenting apps once they had used the apps themselves; (b) all nine apps were rated somewhere between “Poor” to Fair’; and (c) features of some of the best-known apps were not rated as highly as some of the features of more recent, lesser-known apps.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51627,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family Court Review\",\"volume\":\"61 3\",\"pages\":\"563-585\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fcre.12738\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family Court Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.12738\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Court Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.12738","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,出现了一系列令人眼花缭乱的智能手机应用程序(“应用程序”)来支持失散父母的沟通。离婚后的育儿应用在成本和功能上各不相同;它们通常包括消息传递工具、共享日历、费用跟踪器和出于法律目的导出记录的手段。对于离异父母和家庭法律从业者来说,一个关键的挑战是知道哪些应用程序或应用程序功能可以很好地适应不同的家庭环境、需求和预算。本研究试图使用小型人机交互方法评估9个流行的分居后育儿应用程序及其功能。调解员在完成五项常见的分手后沟通或组织任务的同时,扮演高冲突前夫妇的角色。对评级进行了跨案例分析。我们发现(a)许多调解人一旦使用了共同抚养应用程序,就改变了他们对这些应用程序的表面热情;(b)所有九个应用程序的评级介于“差”和“一般”之间;(三)一些最知名应用程序的功能评分不如一些较新、不太知名的应用程序的功能高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Popular post-separation parenting smartphone apps: An evaluation

In recent years a bewildering array of smartphone applications (“apps”) has emerged to support separated parents' communication. Post-separation parenting apps vary in cost and features; they typically comprise a messaging tool, shared calendar, expense tracker and a means to export records for legal purposes. A key challenge for separated parents and family law practitioners alike is knowing which apps or app feature(s) can work well for different family contexts, needs and budgets. The present study sought to evaluate nine popular post-separation parenting apps and their features using small-n Human–Computer Interaction methods. Mediators role-played high conflict ex-couples while completing a set of five common post-separation communication or organizational tasks. A cross-case analysis of ratings was conducted. We found that (a) many of the mediators changed their apparent enthusiasm for co-parenting apps once they had used the apps themselves; (b) all nine apps were rated somewhere between “Poor” to Fair’; and (c) features of some of the best-known apps were not rated as highly as some of the features of more recent, lesser-known apps.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信